I've heard multiple answers some saying you must be rather proficient in Head Down to be able to maintain this type of flying while others have stated that they advanced within this type of flying prior to being proficient in Head Down.

Secondly...how come it seems as if this type of flying style has yet to be adopted/become a larger discipline within the United States compared to Europe? Not many people that I have met seem to be interested within this style....at least at the DZ's that I've been to(East Coast).

Lastly....what are some key tips for body position for Angle flight/Atmonauti(knees dropped with butt up)? Tips on getting into formation when its a little further out? Many thanks !

You don't really need to be proficient at head down flying, but being an experienced head down flyer translates very easily to angle flying where the opposite may not necessarily be true IMO. Angle flying doesn't really help a ton in trying to learn to head down fly, but it certainly doesn't hurt and it helps more than just belly flying! If you want to work on head down flying, then work on head down flying. You don't need angles as a segway.

Angle flying never needed to be "adopted" in the United States, it has existed here for a long time. Except everybody just called it steep tracking or flocking and didn't really make a big fuss about it, celebrate it, or give it new fancy names. It seems that a very small group of Europeans pushed to try and call it something new and different, and everyone else came back with, "umm, this is not new and not very different." Much like (most) people don't think of backsliding as a new/different discipline. There are quite a few old threads about this from a few years ago. You can read all about the science behind relative gravitational winds. It's pretty epic.

I've done some big angle flying dives on a few east coast DZs including Crosskeys (Punautti), Suffolk, Raeford, CSS, Skydive Carolina, Zhills, and Sebastian. You just see it a bit less and people don't celebrate it as some kind of revolution. It's just a tracky/flocky dive. It's easy to do, and I've taught people with as little as 50 jumps to do it fairly well. With enough practice you can angle fly with almost any track dive if you stay ahead of it.

As far as tips, just go fly with folks who are good at it and have them give you some pointers. Reading about it on the internet won't help much. It's pretty easy when you just give it a try with someone setting base if you can already track well. Just stay on head to head level with the base, tuck your head a bit, control pitch with your chest, hang on your thighs, and rudder with your feet. Plan out where you're headed, sort out the exit order just like a track dive, have fun with it, then drink beer at sunset

There's a lot more to talk about than can fit in this thread but I'll throw out a few points for you to consider. There are a lot of different opinions when it comes to this kind of flying. In my opinion, tracking/angle flying/etc or any kind of flying where there is actual movement (rather than just falling straight down a tube) is the purest kind of flying. Being able to incorporate that movement into vertical jumps and vice versa is what makes for the fullest experience in the air and expands the boundaries of what we do and what we can fantasize about and then execute on.

I haven't been around 20 years but have been fortunate enough to fly with a few of the pioneers and the best in both the vertical and "tracking" (tp simplify it) camps. Most of them that have been around long enough will tell you, and logically so, that freeflying started as an escape from belly-flying and the 2-dimensional plane...due to better gear and a bunch of other factors. Playing around with tracking, changing angles, going vertical, then going slightly off vertical and moving, moving fast, smooth and going into a fast flat track, banking to one side and into a head-down carve, etc. The harmony of combining all of that is a completely different sensation from staying just in one spot and it was the origin of the more standard freeflying today.

Unfortunately, it's also not a very quantifiable mode of flight because there are so many different interpretations of it and very few people (outside of Europeans and a few people here like me) that do it. Flying vertical and hitting 20 points in a standard freefly routine or participating in some record head-down jump somewhere instead is a very quantifiable thing. You're either stable, head-level and in control in a group of 20 30 40 people going 90 degrees towards earth or you're not. So it's very black and white. Flying, as I like to refer to tracking/angles/etc., instead does not have a state record and does not have a "clear" path for what it takes to progress. For a head-down record, for example, a new skydiver will know what it takes...it's what everyone practices at the dz every weekend, it's what people spend hours doing in the tunnel...all so you can go and fly safely and smoothly with a bunch of other folks that followed the same steps. That's not the case with angle flight. There's a lot more open-endedness to it and therefore it's not for everyone.

If you ask most people at a dz in the US to do a track dive, it'll likely be slow. People will be arched, they will be sinking but thinking they are really tracking. There will be someone doing what he thinks is "atmonauti" and staying a little ahead of the leader and he'll think he is moving fast and thinking he is flying an angle. So per Simon's post, I can see how people assume it's easy to do and there's nothing to it. Now watch this video and tell me if that is all there is to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-GdLZ96xCg . That is Ippo Fabbi. A real master of flying and fortunately a teacher of mine. Those jumps involve everything from real flat tracking, to steep angles, to head-down, etc. That is real flying...in my opinion.

I think one important thing to consider is that there isn't just one angle that is the "correct" angle. Atmonauti for example is one particular body position and generally exists within a specific range of angles. If you consider head-down a 90 degree angle to the earth and belly flying 0 degrees (parallel) to the earth, "angle" flying is really anything in between. The positions can either involve keeping your body straight or bending your knees, etc. (I could spend pages talking about this but I'll keep it short here). It can also be done at different speeds but generally to be able to move smoothly and change orientations without giving up speed or control or flow, you need to keep a constant level of pressure across your whole body as you move from flying on your belly, to your side (yes, you can fly on your side) to your back or whatever combination of that. If you're not head-down yet, playing with tracking (proper tracking) and slowly bringing that angle steeper and steeper will get you more and more comfortable with being vertical. So that when you do hit that 90 degree head-down sweet-spot, you'll know it because you will have gotten comfortable with the whole range.

If you're really interested in learning what angle flying is really about, I'd be more than happy to show you or teach you. I'm always learning myself by the way. What makes it harder in the US is that no one does it but it doesn't matter. You fly how you want to fly. In my experience over the last couple of years, anyone that gets a taste of what angle flying is really about, even people who've spent years head-down, are ecstatic when they reach the ground...almost as if they had just done their first tandem. As Simon said, it's not a new thing but people have stopped experimenting in the rush and narrow-mindedness to just be on their heads and nothing else.

To be specific with that statement, I mean it's far enough from the norm that it's hard to find people to learn from and to push things with together.

If you think it's hard to find then you're really not looking at all. There are many dropzones all across the country where people do this regularly. The difference is that in some minority group European mentality, it is prefaced with "look at us look at us! we're doing something new and different" and attach all sorts of names like angles, atmonauti, tracing, etc, or whatever the newest name is for the same thing is again. Then edit videos about it like it's all new and different to post everywhere on the internet. In the US, it's just freeflying and the folks say, "hey let's go freeflying". Okay, maybe some of the Eloy folk have taken a liking to calling it "zoom zoom".

But all the same, it's easy to start doing and you can really find it anywhere where there is lots of freeflying going on. What you probably won't find is groups of people doing ONLY this all weekend and treating it like a whole new discipline. In the US it is often just another dive in the mix for the weekend. Like said above, you can see this ANY weekend you go to Eloy and Gabe is around. Or ANY weekend you go to Sebastian and Luis is around. There are many who organize these dives, but generally not ONLY these dives.

If you're looking to focus ONLY on angle stuff, your best bet would be to go to Europe and find the places where it is in higher concentration.

The difference is that in some minority group European mentality, it is prefaced with "look at us look at us! we're doing something new and different" and attach all sorts of names like angles, atmonauti, tracing, etc, or whatever the newest name is for the same thing is again. Then edit videos about it like it's all new and different to post everywhere on the internet.

It's Olav-envy. Like it or not, the guy is recognized as the 'inventor' of freeflying, and in comparison to what was happening at the time, freeflying was a significant shift from what was the status quo, and that's why it got a name and was recognized as it's own discipline.

Atmo-whatever isn't far enough from freefying to be it's own thing. It's just a few degrees off from head down, and almost identical to an old-fashioned flocking dive.

It's just like 'New Coke' if anyone remembers that. The product itself was all that different from 'old Coke' and it was largely a marketing ploy, and in the end, largely a failure. 'New' Coke faded away, and we just back to 'old' Coke. Sorry Europe, time to take a hint from the Coke camp.

All fair points but I think this thread has gone down the wrong path. Who cares what any of any of this is called or how old it is. We've already established none of this is new.

Yes there are people in certain dropzones that do it for sure. The point I am making is that there is a lot more to it than doing some kind of loose track/flock/angle whatever dive once or twice a day that is far from tight, is relatively slow and disorganized, etc. and then saying "yeah, we angle fly and it's easy".

The other point I was trying to make is that it's all flying at the end of the day and incorporating all angles in more jumps is something amazing (even if old) that most people neglect. So to brush it off to the side and say, "it's easy, just go do x, y and z and then have a beer" is a very dismissive attitude.

If you did a group vertical dive and people are not head level and kind of close but not really, you wouldn't say it was a successful dive. So why would a track/angle/whatever jump not have the same standard? The current mentality seems to be a rush to go the tunnel, get super good vertically and then treat anything else as a gimmick when it's that "gimmick" fueled through experimentation that led to the more quantifiable vertical stuff that you do today.

For someone like the original poster who is clearly interested in the whole range of flying, we should be encouraging all of it. Every angle from 0 to 90 requires a ton of practice and deserves respect.

If you did a group vertical dive and people are not head level and kind of close but not really, you wouldn't say it was a successful dive.

Why wouldn't I? I do these dives all the time. Did everyone land safely? Did everyone have fun? Did everyone walk away learning something and progressing their skills? If so, then yes, I would say it was a very successful dive.

Quote:

So why would a track/angle/whatever jump not have the same standard?

It does. When I do them, we go do x, y, and z, have fun and learn, then have a beer. I don't think that's dismissive at all. Like you say, it's all flying at the end of the day. What I dismiss is trying to push angles as something radically different. It's all just freeflying and doesn't exist in a state that has yet to be "adopted" because a small group of Europeans want to tell everyone it is a radical shift in modern freeflying. Olav-envy, I like that.

Quote:

The point I am making is that there is a lot more to it than doing some kind of loose track/flock/angle whatever dive once or twice a day that is far from tight, is relatively slow and disorganized, etc. and then saying "yeah, we angle fly and it's easy".

You're dismissing angle flights done in the US as inferior and of low quality. I guess you weren't on some of the ones I've been on. The best angle dives I've been on in the US were far better than the angle dives I've been on in Europe. They were large, tight, speedy, and very organized involving formations of different groups interlacing and having multiple formation group leaders. Then afterwords, we did something else. Then had some beer.

Either way, I'm glad you figured out what type of flying you personally find amazing. Different strokes for different folks.

It's just like 'New Coke' if anyone remembers that. The product itself was all that different from 'old Coke' and it was largely a marketing ploy, and in the end, largely a failure.

The difference is that Atmo is successful in pretty much every country except for the USA as far as a being recognised as its own dicipline.

I (almost) did an angle jump in America that was organised by a very experienced freeflyer with 13000 jumps etc etc blah blah.. He was a freefly guru and an awesome tunnel coach too... anyway.

Myself and my swiss buddy had been doing a bunch of really nice Atmo jumps at the time making a bunch of points, rotating positions, flying had level and having fun. We were calling our jumos Atmo jumps (rightfully so) with some confused looks from our american peers.

Anyway this load organiser, looked at me and my buddy in the dirt dive and said;

"I know you guys are flying head level on your angle jumps, but on this dive we are going to strictly fly a delta formation" He dared not say Atmo...

We said OK, laughed (at him) and went and did our own jump and made a bunch of points and had a bunch of fun. They did thier 'burble each other' serious jump no points and not quite grasping the finer details...

Do not listen to the (iminent) childish remarks from nay sayers. They are not worth the energy.

They will say it is like flocking etc etc, but flocking is a 'sliding' formation that moves from (relative) wind deflection, Atmo is quite different as it uses lift much like traking but in a more relaxed manner allowing you to present feet and arms for docking.

Most of all it is fun and anybody that tries to take that fun away from you is a wanker.

When I return to the Atmonauti.com page, with its annoying Flash crap, it still has all this pseudoscientific posturing about things like the nature of lift, and statements like, "Tiezzi invents the Atmonautics, a new science that studies the use of the human body in the atmosphere".

Move over physics and aerodynamics, Atmonautics is here!

Despite the insufferable nature of those guys, I do like playing with a little atmo as an amateur when I find someone else to try it with. Atmo is a term that is useful in distinguishing the type of dive, whatever the politics behind it.

When I return to the Atmonauti.com page, with its annoying Flash crap, it still has all this pseudoscientific posturing about things like the nature of lift, and statements like, "Tiezzi invents the Atmonautics, a new science that studies the use of the human body in the atmosphere".

Move over physics and aerodynamics, Atmonautics is here!

Despite the insufferable nature of those guys, I do like playing with a little atmo as an amateur when I find someone else to try it with. Atmo is a term that is useful in distinguishing the type of dive, whatever the politics behind it.

It's funny how people tend to get lost in those "politics" too much.

Why does it matter so much who "invented" it or whatever the "discipline" / jump type is called.. It seems the one's that are shouting with dissatisfaction are mostly Americans too (ego problems?).

Screw the politics, you people forget too often how to simply enjoy stuff

Oh and yeah, atmo (or whatever you wanna call it) is a lot of fun if you do it correctly with the right people

Many thanks to everyone's opinion and explanation. I do try and get on every tracking dive I can possibly get on to further develop my skills.....or lack thereof

Great seeing ya again at Carolina Fest Simon, hopefully see ya again at Summerfest!

Also, I hope to try and get around to your DZ FCipollo and potentially get on some loads with you!

Lastly, so if all this is merely considered to be in "American English" "steep tracking" what would you call tracking in 2 groups that go from side to side above and below each group with 1 leader each? Would everyone agree to call it tracing?

This past weekend I was on a tracking dive that turned way steep way too quick(assuming the leader was going to begin slow and flat but nope!), didn't quite learn so much but did get a chance to see what getting some real distance was!

Lastly, so if all this is merely considered to be in "American English" "steep tracking" what would you call tracking in 2 groups that go from side to side above and below each group with 1 leader each?

Freeflying

So here's a couple questions to ponder. If you have a track dive, but then you make it a bit more complicated of a track dive by having two leaders and tracking around each other, at what point does it stop being a track dive? When you have more than angle X but less than angle Y? Does more than one leader stop making a track dive a track dive? What if there was no particular leader, is it still not a track dive?

If you take a belly RW dive, but have two bases that fly up and over the other, at what point does it stop being a belly RW dive? There are certain 4way FS blocks that do exactly that.

If you do a spaceball jump but use more than one spaceball and let them drift around each other, does it stop being a spaceball dive?

Speaking of Carolinafest, there we all saw a double raft dive where flyers flew two inflatable rafts relative to each other, up and over each other. Is it still not a raft dive?

Maybe a track dive stops being a track dive when you make a website about it and start offering to issue instructors licenses in track dives for a fee.

Maybe a track dive stops being a track dive when you make a website about it and start offering to issue instructors licenses in track dives for a fee.

For a seemingly intelligent guy Simon, you appear to have a very narrow view of things here.

No one is disputing that ANY jump where you are translating across the sky/ground is a tracking jump. (You are after all tracking a path through the sky)

But under the UMBRELLA of tracking different types/styles have been developed, which for communications sake, have also developed their own terminology in other parts of the world. Flat tracking with a bunch of guys in rel suits and booties, is considerably different to stacking an angled track, and or tracing. Yes they are all moving ACROSS the ground so they are all Tracking, but they are not the all same thing and they require different levels of skill to conduct them safely and in a controlled manner.

No one is disputing that ANY jump where you are translating across the sky/ground is a tracking jump. (You are after all tracking a path through the sky)

Apparently you did not read the atmonauti website or the original Tiezzi and friends threads. There is a very strong push from some to not only attempt to re-categorize it entirely as specifically NOT tracking, but beyond even freeflying as a completely new discipline separate from freeflying that requires its own instructional ratings, its own licensing, and even its own section on dz.com separate from freeflying.

I'm not disputing that there are some small differences from the flattest of possible track dives and the steepest of possible track dives, but it is certainly not different enough for the need to develop new licenses or instructor certifications. Come on now, tracking relative at a bit of a steeper angle with your mates certainly does not "revolutionize the concept of skydiving". If refusing to buy into the revolution of human flight band wagon invented "in 1998" means that Americans are narrow minded and that angle flying is not 'accepted', then consider me proud to wear that label.